Certain oil Companies.

[Mani_mba]

Certain oil companies have been called poor corporate citizens because they have opposed government action to limit global warming by undermining scientific research that characterizes the issue as severe. However, these same oil companies have also invested millions of dollars in scientific research to address the long term effects of climate change.

Which of the following best explains the apparent discrepancy in the situation described above?
A)The oil companies only recently began investing in scientific research to address climate change issues.
B)The research dollars invested by the oil companies are specifically earmarked for developing practical technologies that might be used to combat global warming.
C)The government action opposed by the oil companies would negatively impact their profits.
D)The scientific research that characterizes global warming as a severe problem has not been definitively proven.
E)The oil companies don't believe that any scientific research related to climate change will ultimately serve their interests.

Please explain. OA after discussions.

Thanks.

[raunekk]

imo:D

Explanation if its the OA..

[Somerandomguy]

Edited: Now, let me take a stab at this...

(1) Oil companies are undermining the governmental research about the degree of global warming.
(2) At the same time, these oil companies are funding research to address LT climate change.

Which of the following best explains the apparent discrepancy in the situation described above?

A)The oil companies only recently began investing in scientific research to address climate change issues.
Eliminate: Only addresses 1 part of the stim (#2).

B)The research dollars invested by the oil companies are specifically earmarked for developing practical technologies that might be used to combat global warming.
Eliminate: Only addresses 1 part of the stim (#2).

C)The government action opposed by the oil companies would negatively impact their profits.
Eliminate: Out of scope. We don't care if it negatively impacts the companies profits. For all we know, investments to address climate change are negatively impacting their profits as well.


D)The scientific research that characterizes global warming as a severe problem has not been definitively proven.
My choice as well. This allows both statements to co-exist.
(1) Oil companies undermining the severity of the problem (because its not definitely proven).
(2) Oil companies invest in the research themselves (to disprove the government...)

E)The oil companies don't believe that any scientific research related to climate change will ultimately serve their interests.
Eliminate: If anything, this goes against the stimulus. Why are the companies doing research when its for nothing?

[rohangupta83]

imo D

Certain oil companies have been called poor corporate citizens because they have opposed government action to limit global warming by undermining scientific research that characterizes the issue (of global warming) as severe.

The first half of the passage tells you that certain oil companies oppose the scientific research that highlights global warming as a severe issue.

Reasons why the oil companies undermine this research:

1) This research hurts the oil companies (financially or image wise) - shows them in bad light.
2) Oil companies do not think that the research is conclusive enough.
3) Oil companies don't consider global warming a threat.


However, these same oil companies have also invested millions of dollars in scientific research to address the long term effects of climate change.

The second half says that oil companies do invest in research aimed towards addressing the long term effects of climate change. Which means, they have their own efforts going in a similar direction.

This negates the 3rd reason 3) Oil companies don't consider global warming a threat.

The 2nd half of the passage also negates the 1st reason 1) This research hurts the oil companies (financially or image wise) - shows them in bad light. as the 2nd half states that oil companies spend millions in similar research.

So, oil companies probably think that the government action based on the scientific research highlighting global warming is not valid as the research in itself is not conclusive. (according to the oil companies that is)

Moreover, this gives them an incentive to conduct their own research climate change.

[Jatinder]

IMO C

only the action that -vely affect the profit is opposed. Other reasearch has no problem

[gmat009]

Is it B
IMO B looks better

[Mani_mba]

OA is B.

I am not convinced with this answer.

B would have been my choice if it had also addressed the impacts of the government action(opposed by the oil companies) on company's profits.

Please comment on this ..

[4meonly]

I was glad to find my aswer B correct

My reasoning
discrepancy:
oil companies have opposed government action to limit global warming by undermining scientific research. However, these oil companies have also invested millions of dollars in scientific research to study climate change.

I marked B and D
D is not good because it is limited - it speaks only that research has not been definitively proven.
Okay, agree, but is this a reason to invest money in climate changes research? No! It is enough to say - research is bad and there is no need to invest money. Also it speaks about research, not about oil companies. Discrepancy is in oil companies, not in research. So D is "out-of-scope", it is not main idea of the argument.

So we need to find the answer that will explain these investments. Only B explains it - companies invest in development of practical technologies that might be used to combat global warming. Only B shows the motivation to invest.

Hope I helped.

[mals24]

How does option B explain why the oil companies were undermining the government's research?

I feel D is a better option than B.

According to option D oil companies are not against conducting research on global warming but are opposing the government's research because the severity of global warming is not proven.

[Stacey Koprince]

I received a PM asking me to respond.

Argument:
Oil coms oppose gov't action to limit global warming (GW)
oil coms do this by undermining research that says GW is severe
BUT
oil coms also invest $$ to address effects of climate changes

Thoughts:
Oil coms don't want gov't to take action - coms apparently wary of what "gov't action" might entail. Coms seem to accept that climate change exists, though, because they're spending money on it themselves. So they don't oppose gov't action simply because they think global warming is fake or something. What they're actually trying to prevent is gov't action. The coms would apparently rather do this on their own.

A. This tells us when the coms invested $$, not why. Doesn't resolve discrepancy.
B. This says the coms are developing actions to take themselves. I think the wording could be better (and, yes, I know this is one of ours ), but this fits - they do think there's a problem but they want to take action themselves.
C. This explains why they're opposing gov't action but not why they're investing $$.
D. This explains why they might object to research characterizing the issue as severe, and even why they would then oppose resulting gov't action... but then why would they bother to invest $$ if they think there isn't a big problem? If there's no big problem, then there's not much of an opportunity for them to make money solving that problem...
E. This contradicts the passage - why would they spend $$ on climate change research if they thought this was true?

[goelmohit2002]

B. This says the coms are developing actions to take themselves. I think the wording could be better (and, yes, I know this is one of ours ), but this fits - they do think there's a problem but they want to take action themselves.

Hi Stacey,

Thanks. But How does B tell us what is the reason companies are opposing the govt ? How can we assume from B that the companies action against govt and their simultaneous investment in research are BOTH logical reasons ?

Thanks
Mohit

[Stacey Koprince]

Are both logical reasons for what? Not quite sure I fully understand your question.

Our task is to find the answer for which it "makes sense" that the companies are undertaking two apparently contradictory actions. The correct answer should explain why those two things aren't really contradictory after all.

In this case (although, again, I will repeat that I'm not 100% a fan of the wording of this choice), I think the key is that they're trying to develop "practical technologies." The initial thought, on hearing the news that they're trying to undermine gov't action, is that the companies think there isn't a global warming problem. But then they're spending money on global warming research, so that's contradictory.

When a company develops some new technology, it's because the company thinks it can make money somehow with that thing. So these companies are developing their own technologies aimed at global warming stuff. Okay, now it starts to make sense why the companies don't want the government coming along and meddling with things in this area - no gov't regulation = better than regulation that might hurt their bottom line (from the company point of view).

But, again, I'm not totally happy with the wording on this one. I'd want the wording of the answer to spell out more of what I described above - maybe something like, in the past, government regulation has tended to curtail profits made from the development of new technologies in this industry.

Oh, and I should add: it's also the best choice of the 5 that have been presented. I can sometimes argue with the wording of the correct answer even on OG questions, but it's extremely rare for me to find something for which I BOTH don't like the wording of the right answer AND think there's another answer that's better...

[goelmohit2002]

Thanks a lot Stacey.

Can you please once look at the following thread.....that too talks about the MGMAT CAT question.....but there two options look equally correct(atleast to me):

https://www.beatthegmat.com/tariffs-t42610.html#178873

[goelmohit2002]

Are both logical reasons for what? Not quite sure I fully understand your question.

Our task is to find the answer for which it "makes sense" that the companies are undertaking two apparently contradictory actions. The correct answer should explain why those two things aren't really contradictory after all.

In this case (although, again, I will repeat that I'm not 100% a fan of the wording of this choice), I think the key is that they're trying to develop "practical technologies." The initial thought, on hearing the news that they're trying to undermine gov't action, is that the companies think there isn't a global warming problem. But then they're spending money on global warming research, so that's contradictory.

When a company develops some new technology, it's because the company thinks it can make money somehow with that thing. So these companies are developing their own technologies aimed at global warming stuff. Okay, now it starts to make sense why the companies don't want the government coming along and meddling with things in this area - no gov't regulation = better than regulation that might hurt their bottom line (from the company point of view).

But, again, I'm not totally happy with the wording on this one. I'd want the wording of the answer to spell out more of what I described above - maybe something like, in the past, government regulation has tended to curtail profits made from the development of new technologies in this industry.

Oh, and I should add: it's also the best choice of the 5 that have been presented. I can sometimes argue with the wording of the correct answer even on OG questions, but it's extremely rare for me to find something for which I BOTH don't like the wording of the right answer AND think there's another answer that's better...

Thanks a lot Stacey. There are two premises:

Premise#1
==========
Certain oil companies have been called poor corporate citizens because they have opposed government action to limit global warming by undermining scientific research that characterizes the issue as severe.

Premise#2
========
However, these same oil companies have also invested millions of dollars in scientific research to address the long term effects of climate change.


Surely option B addresses Premise#1....but how does it explains the #1...i.e. why are they opposing.....the govt action....premise #1 says that oil companies have weakened their(i.e. oil companies) support to research that characterizes the issue as severe.....basically why are they doing two things....
a) promoting research that solves global warming problem.
b) weakens their support to research that says that global warming is a big issue....(this I am not able to understand how B addresses)

Can you please tell what I am missing here ?

[Spring2009]

I think the main point here is the profitability:
"B)The research dollars invested by the oil companies are specifically earmarked for developing practical technologies that might be used to combat global warming?

If their technologies will be used, surely they can earn a lot of money from selling these technologies.